Another game pulled from shelves (not manhunt)

Heatsinked · 20 Jun 2007 at 15:14

Good call. Just tasteless really, using that image. Although it's quite possible the person who used it didn't realise what it represented.

Admiral Huddy · 20 Jun 2007 at 15:39

zytok said:
The picture of James is only really offending the family.

Really? Do you remember the frenzy this caused? That two minors could conduct such an attack on a small child. It not only sent shock waves through the country but it also made us question our society at the time and I don't think things have been the same since.

zytok · 20 Jun 2007 at 15:43

n3crius said:
I would find it highly offensive if it appeared on a game I was playing.

Seriously? If you had been playing Law & Order (unlikely I know) and your character happened to be in the superintendants office or whatever and on a notice board behind the sergeant's head, that small picture was visible, you personally would be highly offended?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's the best idea ever but surely you'd either not notice at all or just shrug and assume it was nothing relevant? I for one had never seen the picture until someone linked to the article on the beeb's website. Why are the beeb not being criticised for showing the picture?

zytok · 20 Jun 2007 at 15:45

Admiral Huddy said:
Really? Do you remember the frenzy this caused? That two minors could conduct such an attack on a small child. It not only sent shock waves through the country but it also made us question our society at the time and I don't think things have been the same since.

Oh come on..... Yes it caused a frenzy (and rightly so) but to say that this one incident has caused the downfall of society is taking the mick.

Heatsinked · 20 Jun 2007 at 15:49

Well, things haven't exactly improved either... I can fully understand why the family would not want that image anywhere. I personally do not find it offensive. Hell, I wouldn’t have even recognised it, playing the game myself…

Admiral Huddy · 20 Jun 2007 at 15:53

zytok said:
Oh come on..... Yes it caused a frenzy (and rightly so) but to say that this one incident has caused the downfall of society is taking the mick.

I didn't say it caused a downfall?? ... I said it made people question society. Enough to make government realise that there were out of touch and problems that had to be dealt with. It took this one incident for them to realise this.

zytok · 20 Jun 2007 at 15:55

Admiral Huddy said:
and I don't think things have been the same since.

Admiral Huddy · 20 Jun 2007 at 16:20

I still didn't say it was a downfall. Maybe i wasn't making myself clear.. All I was saying is that people changed there opinion of society. People didn't feel safe or comfortable. That this could happen to a child by children. Parents are now, some would say, "over proctective" of their children. It was enough to make everyone realise that society was sick and something had to be done.

You're original comment was that it only upset the family.. but this is far from the truth.

zytok · 20 Jun 2007 at 16:24

Admiral Huddy said:
I still didn't say it was a downfall. Maybe i wasn't making myself clear.. All I was saying is that people changed there opinion of society. People didn't feel safe or comfortable. That this could happen to a child by children. Parents are now, some would say, "over proctective" of their children. It was enough to make everyone realise that society was sick and something had to be done.

I agree on the over-protective bit though I don't have kids of my own yet so my mind may alter. Seem to remember reading or hearing that something like 70% of parents now do not let kids under 14 out unsupervised at all. That is so sad, remember spending loads of time with my mate down by the river or in the woods behind his house when we were primary school age. I guess you don't want to wrap kids up in cotton wool but the urge to do so must be overwhelming.

Admiral Huddy · 20 Jun 2007 at 16:38

zytok said:
I agree on the over-protective bit though I don't have kids of my own yet so my mind may alter. Seem to remember reading or hearing that something like 70% of parents now do not let kids under 14 out unsupervised at all. That is so sad, remember spending loads of time with my mate down by the river or in the woods behind his house when we were primary school age. I guess you don't want to wrap kids up in cotton wool but the urge to do so must be overwhelming.

yes indeed and it was more apparent after this. It really made everyone think and the government adopted new policies to combat societies problems at the time.

Being a foster parent as well as a dad myself, the Bulger case was certainly a turning point in not only in the way handle children but society in general. John Venables was abused himself and often tortured by his father. Not an excuse for his actions, but this lead to massive changes in the way that children were monitored for abuse.

When we registered for fostering, the case was used as example because of it’s nature and the impact it made afterwards.

Biohazard · 20 Jun 2007 at 18:00

lol @ Richdog

M0t0r0la · 20 Jun 2007 at 18:19

A computer game that featured a CCTV image of James Bulger being abducted has been withdrawn by its distributors.

'Law and Order: Double or Nothing' showed a picture of the two-year-old being led away from a Merseyside shopping centre by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson.

A fictional detective in the game then refers to the abduction when he asked gamers to solve a kidnapping.

James' mother, Denise Fergus, complained to the game's manufacturers.

She told Sky News the use of her son's murder in a computer game was "below contempt".

"Using that terrible picture of James as part of a game is sick," she said.
"It dehumanises the memory of my lovely son. To use him in a game is below contempt."

The CCTV image, which was taken at the New Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle in 1993, can be seen pinned to wall of a police station.

In it, James can be seen being led away to his death by the two 10-year-olds.
He was then battered to death on a railway line.

Thompson and Venables were convicted of murder and pair spent eight years in youth custody before being released in 2001 with new identities.

The California-based developer of Law and Order: Double of Nothing, Legacy Interactive, is reported to have apologised for the distress caused and said the photograph would be removed from future copies.

The game has been withdrawn from sale by its UK distributor Global Software.

A company statement said: "It has come to our attention that there may be a image in the game that causes offence.

"As such we have decided to cease selling the game until a full investigation is carried out."

More controversy to try and sell a game? I have to say that this to me really is below the belt, as if the family of James Bulger haven't suffered enough, they have to go through some sick stunt like this, something that could so easily have been changed. I read a book a few months ago that depicted two young boys abducting a child, and it was very reminiscent of the Bulger case, but done with taste, and was there an issue? No, of course not. But to use an actual abduction picture in such a way is damn disrespectful, and could so easily have been either drawn to be different or indeed retaken with different people, neither of which would have caused offence.

Moredhel · 20 Jun 2007 at 18:25

M0t0r0la said:
A computer game that featured a CCTV image of James Bulger being abducted has been withdrawn by its distributors.

More controversy to try and sell a game? I have to say that this to me really is below the belt, as if the family of James Bulger haven't suffered enough, they have to go through some sick stunt like this, something that could so easily have been changed. I read a book a few months ago that depicted two young boys abducting a child, and it was very reminiscent of the Bulger case, but done with taste, and was there an issue? No, of course not. But to use an actual abduction picture in such a way is damn disrespectful, and could so easily have been either drawn to be different or indeed retaken with different people, neither of which would have caused offence.

Have you read -any- of the thread at all? It doesn't refer to the case in the game, despite what that article says, it's merely a background image, and only half shown at that. They just didn't check out their stock photo sources properly, a simple mistake. On top of that the game has been out for nearly 5 years, it's hardly that they're using the story to sell more copies!

Edit: Just noticed you posted this as it's own thread first in the console forum, so I apologise to you for having a go at you for not reading the thread. But my other points stand.

Abooie · 20 Jun 2007 at 19:11

CrowK said:
Without a shadow of a doubt, every child that has died in this country (and beyond) in the last 4 years, would be alive if it were not for this game. Monstrous

You're totally missing the point.

This is not a 'fictional' image of two children leading another to his death it's a personal picture and as such the family of such a victim have every right to complain at it's use in a 'for profit' 'entertainment' project.

I see what you're trying to say but unfortunately it's misguided, uuthoughtful and shows a total lack of post-adolescent thinking.

If someone took my child in this manner then another company came along and used images from his/her abduction to make money you're damn right I too would be ****** and look to have 'the images' removed.

ttreaders · 20 Jun 2007 at 19:16

Despite peoples different views on here I think we all agree that having that picture in the game was out of order no matter whether it was put in by mistake or not due to the pain it caused for the family involved.

While to us it's just a picture and you wouldn't even know what it was to the family it's a tragic reminder.

Atomic · 20 Jun 2007 at 21:07

I was watching a program on either one of the Discovery channels or Nat Geographic and it was about two former U.S milatary people who left and kidnapped a few women to torture and kill them.

Videos they made of them being handcuffed and hours later killed was shown, but yet no outcry about that?

What abouthe news media showing images of war, death and blood - wheres the uproar from that? Where's the family consent when they air images of people dead in the street or people crying their eyes out at the loss of the friends or family and the news media just intrude with cameras all over that location....

Moredhel · 20 Jun 2007 at 21:15

That's not done for entertainment. That's done for ratings so the networks can earn a fortune in advertising revenue...

BenST · 20 Jun 2007 at 21:57

Atomic said:
What abouthe news media showing images of war, death and blood - wheres the uproar from that? Where's the family consent when they air images of people dead in the street or people crying their eyes out at the loss of the friends or family and the news media just intrude with cameras all over that location....

That's the nature of News, it's real, not for entertainment. A game is purely for entertainment so including an image of a real life horrific event is hardly in the same league

Admiral Huddy · 21 Jun 2007 at 09:05

BenST said:
That's the nature of News, it's real, not for entertainment. A game is purely for entertainment so including an image of a real life horrific event is hardly in the same league

Agreed and was my point earlier.

What right has anyone got to use that picture in any form of entertainment. I'm still puzzled, as I've said before, how no one NO ONE saw this before it hit the shelves. What's up with people? Are they really that short minded and selfish. :mad:

ttreaders said:
Despite peoples different views on here I think we all agree that having that picture in the game was out of order no matter whether it was put in by mistake or not due to the pain it caused for the family involved.

Absolutely.

It still chills my bones to see those images of the poor blighter being taken away. Those last moments of his short life before his brutal death by two other children. The parents must look at that picture and want grab him… save him or say goodbye. It must be awful.

Apart from the brutal murder itself, there are two sickening aspects about the Bulger case:

1. Not excusing his actions, John Venables was abused and tortured by his parents.

2. That both lads are walking free in our society with new identities paid for by the tax payer within 8 years of murdering James. What happened there then? Where is the justice in that?